design theory defeats itself

[Mighty Curelom]

The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution,

There exists a wide range of "theories" under the heading of intelligent design. Some IDers are creationists who reject evolution entirely, not just the process of natural selection.

particularly those that evolutionsist shrug their shoulders with, as well as overcoming the very real problem of probability (a science), meaning the odds of pure Evolution being sucessful to produce the complex environment that exist today is so over whelming as to make pure Evolution highly unlikely if not wholey impossible.

You speak of probabilities. How do you arive at these probabilities? Science is about quantification; you can't just say "x is too improbable to ever happen" without having some hard statistical data backing you up. First you'll have to demonstrate exactly how probable naturalitic evolution is, then you'd have to demonstrate that a cosmic creator is more probable. You actually have to use some mathematics here. Otherwise, you're not demonstrating anything. All you're saying is "I find it difficult to believe that evolution could occur without a guiding hand, therefore a guiding hand is necessary." What you find difficult to believe is irrelevant; you have to support your position with quantifiable data.

[Knight who says Ne]

There exists a wide range of "theories" under the heading of intelligent design.

There exists a range of theories that comes under the heading of evolution also.

cut and pasted from another web site

Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated.

Your point is what?

as for probability

Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms [natural selction]. Random {read chance or probability} mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation...

The proability of random natual selection achieiving the complex world we have today? Put a hundred balls numbers 1 to 100 in a box. Reach in and 'randomly' extract the ball one by one.....in sequence.

[thesometimesaint]

Knight who says Ne:

Its more like putting in thousands of UNMARKED balls. Each with differing glue components that only work when matched up with the right. Pulling a handfull at a time.

Putting back any that don't "work" and then doing it an infinite number of times over billions of years till ONE works.

[E Allusion]

Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning

It's a good paper, yo. Just quickly glancing at some of the posts, it seems relevant to certain kinds of arguments being brought up.

[spinner]

The proability of random natual selection achieiving the complex world we have today?  Put a hundred balls numbers 1 to 100 in a box.  Reach in and 'randomly' extract the ball one by one.....in sequence.

This is still not responsive to the point mighty curelom was making. It's not enough to say you find it unlikely (or extremely unlikely or whatever) that the world we live in could result through a purely natural processes. (And by the way, I don't find it that unlikely. Think of the billions of years the earth has been around and the trillions or probabilities created within that time span and the probabilities for certain events to have occurred becomes much better. But I digress...) What you have to to show is that your own hypothesis, i.e., that God did it, is more likely, using solid mathematical data to prove your point. Since there is NO solid scientific evidence for the existence of God and really no way to prove or disprove his/her/its/their hand in the development of life, ID is not science, it is conjecture.

(By the way, E Allusion, great link. Thanks.)

[randyc]

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least? That would directly contradict the bretheren's teaching of our earth, now, wouldn't it?

I don't think it would, actually. It is my understanding that LDS doctrine does not make claims about the duration of the the Earth's generative process.

[Loki]

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?  That would directly contradict the bretheren's teaching of our earth, now, wouldn't it?

I don't think it would, actually. It is my understanding that LDS doctrine does not make claims about the duration of the the Earth's generative process.

Looked at the BOM timeline lately? Sure shows an early earth if you ask me.

[Knight who says Ne]

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?

[Knight who says Ne]

What you have to to show is that your own hypothesis, i.e., that God did it, is more likely, using solid mathematical data to prove your point. Since there is NO solid scientific evidence for the existence of God and really no way to prove or disprove his/her/its/their hand in the development of life, ID is not science, it is conjecture.

Probability is a science so therefore there is no conjecture. Poiting by my example of pulling balls numbered 1 to 100 in sequence. Intelligent Design eliminates the probability problem because random selection is eliminated. By which, random selection is not a proven science so shouldn't be taught...using your reasoning.

So I stand by what I said. The same evidences that support evolution support Intelligent Design.

[Loki]

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?

[Knight who says Ne]

Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?

[Loki]

Open up & read your BOM timeline. It is in the canonized scripture, so don't tell met that they don't have an opinion.

[Knight who says Ne]

Open up & read your BOM timeline. It is in the canonized scripture, so don't tell met that they don't have an opinion.

You are the one with the theory. I asked you to explain.

[Mighty Curelom]

The proability of random natual selection achieiving the complex world we have today?  Put a hundred balls numbers 1 to 100 in a box. 

Excellent. Now tell me how you arrived at this probability. Your answer should look something like this :

The probability of a mutation is x.

The probability of a beneficial mutation is y.

And so on.

Lets talk specifics here. Don't give me an analogy using balls in a box. Give me the actual probability of mutations and the natural selection of those mutations, and tell me how you arrived at that probability.

[Knight who says Ne]

The proability of random natual selection achieiving the complex world we have today?

[Mighty Curelom]

I'll save you time. Dispute my theory...because I stand by it just as rigidly as athiest scientist stand by evolution.

By way of opportunity, in my web seaches, I couldn't find any pro evolution sites that refutes the probabilty issue. They take it as a non-issue.

Translation: "I have absolutely no idea how to come up with a mathematical probability for evolution. "

Don't feel bad. Nobody does. That's why the "evolution is too improbable to be possible" is not a sound argument. You have no way of knowing what the probability of evolution is, and you certainly don't have any way of knowing what the probability of a cosmic designer existing would be to compare it to the probability of naturalistic evolution (which you can't come up with anyway.) In other words, you can't claim that A is more probable than B when you don't know the probability of A orB.

[Knight who says Ne]

I'll save you time. Dispute my theory...because I stand by it just as rigidly as athiest scientist stand by evolution.

By way of opportunity, in my web seaches, I couldn't find any pro evolution sites that refutes the probabilty issue. They take it as a non-issue.

Translation: "I have absolutely no idea how to come up with a mathematical probability for evolution. "

Don't feel bad. Nobody does. That's why the "evolution is too improbable to be possible" is not a sound argument. You have no way of knowing what the probability of evolution is, and you certainly don't have any way of knowing what the probability of a cosmic designer existing would be to compare it to the probability of naturalistic evolution (which you can't come up with anyway.) In other words, you can't claim that A is more probable than B when you don't know the probability of A orB.

I've given my probability theory. I noticed you took no attempt to refute it. Thank you for your support.

[ScriptureLover]

Actually Mighty Curelom is correct. If you CAN'T *show* the probability, the mere claiming that something is improbable is worthless.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution

Kerry:

This God of the gaps idea has been thoroughly debunked however. ID presents NO EVIDENCE for their Intelligent designer. Their approach is, because we don't understand ALL the processes, we invoke intelligent designer into it. This is worthless science. It's great religion however. THis premise that because we haven't found answers yet we invoke a designer is a VERY dangerous precedent to set. Because science doesn't have ALL answers today does not mean they can't be found. This literally eliminates more and more of the intelligent designer the more discoveries that science makes. It's the WORSE kind of science, this God of the gaps. It loses big time.

[cdowis]

Loki asks:

>Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?

Of course.

>That would directly contradict the bretheren's teaching of our earth, now, wouldn't it?

No it does not. You are confusing the LDS church with historic Christian creationists who reject modern revealed scriptures.

We do not accept "poof" theory of the creationists (creation ex nihlo), nor is it necessary to accept the young earth theory. I would be interested in any specific references to a young earth that you could dig up where "the brethren" said any such thing.

[cdowis]

>ID presents NO EVIDENCE for their Intelligent designer. Their approach is, because we don't understand ALL the processes, we invoke intelligent designer into it. This is worthless science.

As I have pointed out, to claim the "miracle of evolution" (a quotation from a science program on PBS) is also worthless science to expain the origin of man or any other creature.

The mechanism of evolution has indeed been proven, but not evolution as the creator. It is still a theory.

The organism we know as Man is not the result of evolutionary process.

I welcome your refutation of this statement.

[Knight who says Ne]

Knight:

The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution

Kerry:

This God of the gaps idea has been thoroughly debunked however. ID presents NO EVIDENCE for their Intelligent designer. Their approach is, because we don't understand ALL the processes, we invoke intelligent designer into it. This is worthless science. It's great religion however. THis premise that because we haven't found answers yet we invoke a designer is a VERY dangerous precedent to set. Because science doesn't have ALL answers today does not mean they can't be found. This literally eliminates more and more of the intelligent designer the more discoveries that science makes. It's the WORSE kind of science, this God of the gaps. It loses big time.

I politfully disagree. The notion that evolution created a complex world spontaneously, randomly and without the aid of an intelligent designer is nothing but junk science especially in light that random selection is a scientific inference (guesses) about fossel records and random selection has NEVER been reproduced in the lab and yet it is widely held as fact. In other words, they say they really don't know how evolution achieved what it did, they debate various theories under the evolution umbrella, they just know (without any credable evidence to the contrary) it wasn't God.

Go figure.

The same evidences that supports evolution supports Intelligent Design. Thank you and good night.

[cdowis]

>You have no way of knowing what the probability of evolution is,

A good start is the probability of the DNA sequence in the exact order as the human DNA molecule.

Just compute the probability of that sequence.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

The notion that evolution created a complex world spontaneously, randomly and without the aid of an intelligent designer is nothing but junk science

Kerry:

Actually, it is perfectly GOOD science, as science deals with the natural world. It is LOUSY religion however..............but it doesn't claim to be religion. I'm not trying to cause a fight here, I promise. I am just saying to invoke God into the scheme with things we don't know is dangerous! Finding God in the deficiencies of science is a terrible methodology because in the past when science didn't know answers to many conundrums, it eventually DID FIND THE ANSWERS. God was NOT invoked, yet answers came. Science, given enough time, does find out some baffling things about how things work. There is no reason to incoke a deity because of ignorance of processes.

[ScriptureLover]

cdowis:

Just compute the probability of that sequence.

Kerry:

Hi Bro Dowis! Dawkins in his book "The BLind Watchmaker" has already addressed this idea. evolution does not always have to start from scratch each new time. It builds on what has worked before and continues on, not from 0 but from whatever worked which had already evolved. Like Kenneth Miller has noted in his magnificent book which perfectly reconciled evolution and theology for me personally, "Finding Darwin's God" (HIGHLY recommended reading), the deficiencies of science in nowise means a good methodology is to call forth God as the answer. THAT is not science. Science is not refuting God's existence, it is simply working with the natural world because that is what is testable. the Supernatural has no means of being tested in the natural world with natural processes, so far as we know.